[Federal Register: November 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 223)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 65256-65261]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20no07-16]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
27 CFR Parts 4 and 9
[Notice No. 77; Re: Notice No. 36]
RIN: 1513-AA92
Proposed Establishment of the Calistoga Viticultural Area (2003R-
496P)
AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
[[Page 65257]]
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On March 31, 2005, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau published a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish the
Calistoga viticultural area in Napa County, California. In light of
comments regarding the potential adverse impact on established brand
names that we received in response to that prior notice, we issue this
new notice of proposed rulemaking to seek comments on our proposal to
provide ``grandfather'' protection for certain brand names used on
existing certificates of label approval, provided those labels also
carry information that would dispel an impression that the wine meets
the requirements for using the viticultural area name. We designate
viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of
their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may
purchase.
DATES: We must receive written comments regarding this notice on or
before December 20, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments on this notice to one of the following
addresses:
http://www.regulations.gov (Federal e-rulemaking portal;
follow the instructions for submitting comments); or
Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and
Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, P.O. Box 14412, Washington, DC 20044-
4412.
See the Public Participation section of this notice for specific
instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for
information on how to request a public hearing.
You may view copies of this notice and any comments we receive
about this proposal at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
2007-0067. You also may view copies of the previous notice regarding
this subject and the comments received in response to it under the same
docket number. In addition, you may view this notice, the previous
notice, all comments received in response to the two notices, as well
as all related petitions, maps, and supporting materials, by
appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20220. To make an appointment, call 202-927-2400.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy R. Greenberg, Regulations and
Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G
Street NW., Suite 200E, Washington, DC 20220; telephone 202-927-8210;
or e-mail Amy.Greenberg@ttb.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background on Viticultural Areas
TTB Authority
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (the FAA
Act, 27 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) requires that alcohol beverage labels
provide consumers with adequate information regarding product identity
and prohibits the use of misleading information on those labels. The
FAA Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue
regulations to carry out its provisions. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax
and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers these regulations.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) allows the
establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their
names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine
advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) contains
the list of approved viticultural areas.
Definition
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i))
defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-
growing region distinguishable by geographical features, the boundaries
of which have been recognized and defined in part 9 of the regulations.
These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given
quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes
grown in an area to its geographic origin. The establishment of
viticultural areas allows vintners to describe more accurately the
origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify
wines they may purchase. Establishment of a viticultural area is
neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in
that area.
Requirements
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure
for proposing an American viticultural area (AVA) and provides that any
interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region
as a viticultural area. Section 9.3(b) of the TTB regulations specifies
the requirements for an AVA petition. The petition to establish
Calistoga as an AVA was filed in accordance with these procedures and
requirements.
Prior Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
On March 31, 2005, TTB published in the Federal Register (70 FR
16451) as Notice No. 36 a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the
establishment of the Calistoga viticultural area. In that notice, we
requested comments from all interested persons by May 31, 2005. TTB
received two comments regarding Notice No. 36 before the close of the
comment period. Both comments fully support the establishment of the
Calistoga viticultural area.
Subsequent Comments Received
After the close of the public comment period, we received
representations on behalf of two entities opposing the establishment of
the Calistoga viticultural area as proposed. These entities are
Calistoga Partners, L.P., d.b.a. Calistoga Cellars, and Chateau
Calistoga LLC, which uses ``Calistoga Estate'' as its trade name.
In a written submission to TTB, representatives of Calistoga
Partners, L.P., expressed opposition to the establishment of the
Calistoga viticultural area due to the impact the establishment of an
area named ``Calistoga'' would have on the winery and its existing wine
labels. In particular, Calistoga Partners noted that it has been using
the ``Calistoga Cellars'' name on wine labels since 1998. TTB notes
that under 27 CFR 4.25(e), a wine may be labeled with a viticultural
area appellation if, among other things, at least 85 percent of the
wine is derived from grapes grown within the viticultural area named.
Calistoga Partners indicated that its wines would not meet the 85
percent requirement for its existing labels if the proposed
viticultural area were established. Because the winery has been using
the ``Calistoga Cellars'' brand name on its labels since 1998, it may
not rely upon the ``grandfather'' provision in 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2), which
applies only to brand names used on certificates of label approval
issued prior to July 7, 1986.
The letter also stated that the partnership has collectively
invested millions of dollars and years of effort to build the trade
name, trademark, and brand name ``Calistoga Cellars.'' Its
representatives claim that to lose the use of the name or to be
restricted in its use would materially impact the winery. As to the
merits of a ``Calistoga'' viticultural area, Calistoga Partners argues
that the term ``Calistoga'' is most often associated with the town of
Calistoga, which is known as a tourist destination rather than a
specific viticultural area.
For these reasons, Calistoga Partners requested that TTB: (1)
Reopen the public comment period to allow it and others to provide
additional comment on alternative solutions that would protect
Calistoga brand names; (2) exempt Calistoga Partners from any
restrictive consequences resulting from
[[Page 65258]]
the establishment of the Calistoga viticultural area through a
``grandfathering'' approach; (3) delay approval of the AVA until an
industry-wide solution is implemented to protect Calistoga Partners; or
(4) allow Calistoga Partners to continue to use its existing labels
with a TTB-approved notice on the back label.
As previously noted, TTB also received comments opposing the
establishment of the ``Calistoga'' viticultural area on behalf of
Chateau Calistoga LLC, citing the impact that establishment of the AVA
would have on existing labels bearing the ``Calistoga Estate'' trade
name. This entity stated that it has spent considerable money and time
building the ``Calistoga Estate'' name. According to that entity, its
wines are made under contract with a winery in Santa Rosa, California,
and are produced with grapes from the Napa region, but not necessarily
from the Calistoga region. This commenter also supported use of a
``grandfathering'' approach.
Revised Regulatory Text Proposed
After careful consideration of the evidence submitted in support of
the petition and the comments received, TTB believes that there is a
substantial basis for the establishment of the viticultural area. The
petitioners submitted sufficient evidence of the viticultural
distinctiveness of the Calistoga area, and no evidence was provided to
contradict the petitioners' evidence. TTB also believes that
``Calistoga'' is the most appropriate name for the area. There is ample
evidence clearly showing that ``Calistoga'' is the name by which the
area is locally and regionally known and that the term ``Calistoga'' by
itself has been associated historically with viticulture, specifically
Napa Valley viticulture.
Consistent with previous practice, we considered alternative names
as a means to resolve conflicts between existing labels and the
establishment of a ``Calistoga'' proposed viticultural area.
Previously, for example, the ``Oak Knoll District of Napa Valley''
viticultural area (T.D. TTB-9, 69 FR 8562) and the ``Diamond Mountain
District'' viticultural area (T.D. ATF-456, 66 FR 29698) were
established after resolving such conflicts, resulting in AVA names that
were modifications of those originally proposed by the petitioners. The
petition to establish the ``Oak Knoll District of Napa Valley''
viticultural area originally proposed the name ``Oak Knoll District''.
The petition to establish the ``Diamond Mountain District''
viticultural area originally proposed the name ``Diamond Mountain'' for
the viticultural area. In these and similar cases, TTB found that name
evidence supported the use of the modified names, that the modified
names were associated with the proposed viticultural area boundaries,
and that their use reduced potential consumer confusion with long-
standing existing labels. In the two cases cited here, Oak Knoll
District of Napa Valley and Diamond Mountain District, the petitioners
also agreed to the modifications of the viticultural area names.
In the case at hand, the petitioners and commenters have not
suggested any modification to the proposed name that would resolve
conflicts between existing brand names and the establishment of a
``Calistoga'' viticultural area. Moreover, TTB did not find any
potential name modifications to be acceptable substitutes for the
proposed ``Calistoga'' viticultural area name. Because the term
``Calistoga'' alone is a specific, not generic, descriptive name that
is clearly associated with Napa Valley viticulture, regardless of
whether there may be adequate evidence to support a name modification
such as ``Calistoga District'', the term ``Calistoga'' alone has
viticultural significance, and therefore any viticultural area name
including the term ``Calistoga'' would be as problematic as the
proposed name.
TTB believes that the evidence submitted by the petitioners
indicates that designation of the Calistoga viticultural area would be
in conformity with applicable law and regulations. We do not find the
request by Calistoga Partners that TTB delay the approval of the
``Calistoga'' viticultural area ``until an industry-wide solution is
implemented to protect Calistoga Cellars'' to be an appropriate or
responsive resolution. The Calistoga case and cases with similar
factual bases involve a fundamental conflict between two otherwise
valid and appropriate TTB administrative actions, the approval of
labels by TTB through issuance of COLAs and the subsequent approval of
a petitioned-for AVA.
However, TTB also believes that Calistoga Partners has demonstrated
a legitimate interest in not losing the ability to continue to use its
long-held Calistoga Cellars brand name on its wines in the same way it
has been using this name. We believe it is desirable to find a solution
that will address the legitimate interests of both the Calistoga
petitioners, who have an interest in gaining formal recognition of a
viticulturally significant area and name, and vintners who have an
interest in retaining the use of long-held brand names. We also
believe, as a fundamental tenet of administrative practice, that it is
preferable to avoid, whenever possible, a situation in which one
otherwise proper administrative action (issuance of a certificate of
label approval in this case) is restricted by a subsequent, valid
administrative action (establishment of a viticultural area). And
perhaps most importantly, where a conflict arises between a proposed
AVA name and an established brand name, we do not believe that, in the
context of the labeling provisions of the FAA Act, it is an appropriate
government role to make choices between competing commercial interests,
if such choices can be avoided.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we are proposing to add
in part 9 a new section covering the Calistoga viticultural area. The
new part 9 section text would differ from the section text proposed in
Notice No. 36 by the addition of a paragraph (d) to set forth a
``grandfather'' provision that allows continued use of brand names that
contain the term ``Calistoga'' even though the wine may not meet the
appellation of origin requirements of part 4 for the use of the
``Calistoga'' appellation of origin. Under this ``grandfather''
provision, a brand name containing the word ``Calistoga'' may only
appear on wine that does not meet the appellation of origin
requirements if: (1) The appropriate TTB officer finds that the brand
name has been in actual commercial use for a significant period of time
under one or more existing certificates of label approval that were
issued under part 4 of this chapter before March 31, 2005; and (2) the
wine is labeled with information that the appropriate TTB officer finds
to be sufficient to dispel the impression that the use of ``Calistoga''
in the brand name conforms to the appellation of origin requirements of
Sec. 4.25. In no case would the grandfather provision apply to a label
approved on or after March 31, 2005, the date that Notice No. 36 was
published in the Federal Register originally proposing the
establishment of the Calistoga viticultural area. The proposed rule is
intended to limit the adverse effect on established brands, and at the
same time dispel any misleading impression that might exist as to the
origin of the grapes used in those wines.
We note that this proposed paragraph (d) text would not extend to
the use of the name ``Calistoga Estate'' because that name was
submitted to TTB for label approval after the notice of proposed
rulemaking was made public
[[Page 65259]]
through publication in the Federal Register.
This proposal would not affect the application of the current
``grandfather'' provision in 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) to any Calistoga brand
name used in an existing certificate of label approval issued prior to
July 7, 1986.
In this document we have also included a proposed amendment to 27
CFR 4.39(i)(1) to conform that text to the paragraph (d)
``grandfather'' provision in the proposed ``Calistoga'' AVA text in
part 9.
Impact on Current Wine Labels
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a
wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true
place of origin. If we establish this proposed viticultural area, its
name, ``Calistoga,'' will be recognized under 27 CFR 4.39(i)(3) as a
name of viticultural significance. The text of the proposed regulation
clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using ``Calistoga''
in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference
as to the origin of the wine, would have to ensure that the product
either is eligible to use the viticultural area's name as an
appellation of origin or meets the requirements for application of the
existing ``grandfather'' provision or the ``grandfather'' provision
proposed for the Calistoga AVA.
For a wine to be eligible to use as an appellation of origin a
viticultural area name or other term specified as being viticulturally
significant in part 9 of the TTB regulations, at least 85 percent of
the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented
by that name or other term, and the wine must meet the other conditions
listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible to use the
viticultural area name or other term as an appellation of origin and
that name or term appears in the brand name, then the label is not in
compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain
approval of a new label. Similarly, if the viticultural area name or
other term appears in another reference on the label in a misleading
manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label.
Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing a
viticultural area name that was used as a brand name on a label
approved before July 7, 1986. In addition to the amendment of Sec.
4.39(i)(1) contained in this document, see 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for
details.
Public Participation
Comments Invited
We specifically invite comments from interested members of the
public on the proposed ``grandfather'' provision protecting certain
brand names used on existing certificates of label approval that
contain the proposed ``Calistoga'' viticultural area name, provided
those labels also carry information that would dispel an impression
that the wine meets the requirements for using the viticultural area
name. In addition, we invite comment on the period of time of actual
commercial use that would be deemed ``significant'' under the rule, and
on alternatives to the proposed regulatory text.
We also solicit comments on what type of dispelling information is
sufficient to prevent consumers from being misled as to the origin of
the grapes used to produce such wines and comments on the appropriate
type size and location on the label for such information. Any other
comments related to the approaches in this proposed rule are invited.
Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views or
suggestions presented will be particularly helpful in developing a
reasoned regulatory decision of this matter. However, comments
consisting of mere allegations or opinions are counterproductive to the
rulemaking process that is designed to build a factual evidentiary
record for the final rule.
Submitting Comments
You may submit comments on this notice by one of the following two
methods:
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: To submit a comment on this
notice using the online Federal e-rulemaking portal, visit http://www.regulations.gov
and select ``Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau'' from the agency drop-down menu and click ``Submit.'' In the
resulting docket list, click the ``Add Comments'' icon for Docket No.
2007-0067 and complete the resulting comment form. You may attach
supplemental files to your comment. More complete information on using
Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing open and closed
dockets and for submitting comments, is available through the site's
``User Tips'' link.
Mail: You may send written comments to the Director,
Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau, P.O. Box 14412, Washington, DC 20044-4412.
Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this
notice. Your comments must include this notice number and your name and
mailing address. Your comments must be legible and written in language
acceptable for public disclosure. We do not acknowledge receipt of
comments, and we consider all comments as originals.
If you are commenting on behalf of an association, business, or
other entity, your comment must include the entity's name as well as
your name and position title. If you comment via http://www.regulations.gov
, please enter the entity's name in the
``Organization'' blank of the comment form. If you comment via mail,
please submit your entity's comment on letterhead.
You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing
date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right
to determine whether to hold a public hearing.
Confidentiality
All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public
record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your
comments that you consider to be confidential or inappropriate for
public disclosure.
Public Disclosure
You may view copies of this notice and any electronic or mailed
comments we receive about this proposal on the Federal e-rulemaking
portal at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 2007-0067. You
also may view copies of the previous notice regarding this subject and
the comments received in response to it under the same docket number.
To view a posted document or comment, go to http://www.regulations.gov
and select ``Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau'' from the agency
drop-down menu and click ``Submit.'' In the resulting docket list,
click the appropriate docket number, then click the ``View'' icon for
any document or comment posted under that docket number.
All submitted and posted comments will display the commenter's
name, organization (if any), city, and State, and, in the case of
mailed comments, all address information, including e-mail addresses.
We may omit voluminous attachments or material that we consider
unsuitable for posting.
You may also view copies of this notice, the previous notice, and
all electronic and mailed comments received in response to the two
notices, as well as all related petitions, maps,
[[Page 65260]]
and supporting materials, by appointment at the TTB Information
Resource Center, 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. You may also
obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5 x 11-inch page. Contact our
information specialist at the above address or by telephone at 202-927-
2400 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments or
other materials.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
We certify that this proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed rule imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping requirement.
Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name is the
result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from
that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
Executive Order 12866
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as
defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it requires no regulatory
assessment.
Drafting Information
Amy R. Greenberg and Michael D. Hoover of the Regulations and
Rulings Division drafted this document.
List of Subjects
27 CFR Part 4
Advertising, Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Labeling,
Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Trade practices, Wine.
27 CFR Part 9
Wine.
The Regulatory Amendment
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we propose to amend 27
CFR, chapter I, parts 4 and 9, as follows:
PART 4--LABELING AND ADVERTISING OF WINE
1. The authority citation for part 4 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205, unless otherwise noted.
2. In Sec. 4.39, paragraph (i)(1) is amended by adding the words
``or in Sec. 9.209(d) of this chapter'' after ``subparagraph (2)''.
PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS
3. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas
4. Subpart C is amended by adding Sec. 9.209 to read as follows:
Sec. 9.209 Calistoga.
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this
section is ``Calistoga''. For purposes of part 4 of this chapter,
``Calistoga'' is a term of viticultural significance, but its use in a
brand name is also subject to paragraph (d) of this section.
(b) Approved maps. The appropriate maps used to determine the
boundary of the Calistoga viticultural area are four United States
Geological Survey 1:24,000 scale topographic quadrangle maps. They are
titled:
(1) Mark West Springs, Calif. (1993);
(2) Calistoga, CA (1997);
(3) St. Helena, Calif. (1960, revised 1993); and
(4) Detert Reservoir, CA (1997).
(c) Boundary. The Calistoga viticultural area is located in
northwestern Napa County, California. The boundary beginning point is
on the Mark West Springs map at the point where the Napa-Sonoma county
line intersects Petrified Forest Road in section 3, T8N/R7W. From this
point, the boundary:
(1) Continues northeasterly along Petrified Forest Road
approximately 1.9 miles to the road's intersection with the 400-foot
contour line near the north bank of Cyrus Creek approximately 1,000
feet southwest of the intersection of Petrified Forest Road and State
Route 128 on the Calistoga map;
(2) Proceeds generally east-southeast (after crossing Cyrus Creek)
along the 400-foot contour line to its intersection with Ritchey Creek
in section 16, T8N/R6W;
(3) Follows Ritchey Creek northeast approximately 0.3 miles to its
intersection with State Route 29 at the 347-foot benchmark;
(4) Proceeds east-southeast along State Route 29 approximately 0.3
miles to its intersection with a light-duty road labeled Bale Lane;
(5) Follows Bale Lane northeast approximately 0.7 miles to its
intersection with the Silverado Trail;
(6) Proceeds northwest along the Silverado Trail approximately
1,500 feet to its intersection with an unmarked driveway on the north
side of the Silverado Trail near the 275-foot benchmark;
(7) Continues northeasterly along the driveway for 300 feet to its
intersection with another driveway, and then continues north-northeast
in a straight line to the 400-foot contour line;
(8) Follows the 400-foot contour line easterly approximately 0.7
miles to its intersection with an unimproved dirt road (an extension of
a road known locally as the North Fork of Crystal Springs Road), which
lies in the Carne Humana Land Grant approximately 1,400 feet southwest
of the northwest corner of section 11, T8N/R6W on the St. Helena map;
(9) Continues northerly along the unimproved dirt road
approximately 2,700 feet to its intersection with the 880-foot contour
line in section 2, T8N/R6W;
(10) Follows the meandering 880-foot contour line northwesterly,
crossing onto the Calistoga map in section 2, T8N/R6W, and continues
along the 880-foot contour line through section 3, T8N/R6W, sections 34
and 35, T9N/R6W, (with a brief return to the St. Helena map in section
35), to the 880-contour line's intersection with Biter Creek in the
northeast quadrant of section 34, T9N/R6W;
(11) Continues westerly along the meandering 880-foot contour line
around Dutch Henry Canyon in section 28, T9N/R6W, and Simmons Canyon in
section 29, T9N/R6W, to the contour line's first intersection with the
R7W/R6W range line in section 30, T9N/R6W;
(12) Continues northerly along the meandering 880-foot contour line
across the two forks of Horns Creek and through Hoisting Works Canyon
in section 19, T9N/R6W, crossing between the Calistoga and Detert
Reservoir maps, to the contour line's intersection with Garnett Creek
in section 13, T9N/R7W, on the Detert Reservoir map;
(13) Continues westerly along the meandering 880-foot contour line,
crossing between the Calistoga and Detert Reservoir maps in sections 13
and 14, T9N/R7W, and in the region labeled ``Mallacomes or Moristul y
Plan de Agua Caliente,'' to the contour line's intersection with the
Napa-Sonoma county line approximately 1.1 miles northeast of State
Route 128 in the ``Mallacomes or Moristul y Plan de Agua Caliente''
region, T9N/R7W, of the Mark Springs West map; and
(14) Proceeds southerly along the Napa-Sonoma county line to the
beginning point.
(d) Brand names. A brand name containing the word ``Calistoga'' may
be used on a label only if:
(1) The wine meets the appellation of origin requirements of Sec.
4.25 of this chapter for the viticultural area established by this
section;
(2) The appropriate TTB officer finds that the brand name has been
in actual commercial use for a significant period of time under one or
more existing
[[Page 65261]]
certificates of label approval that were issued under part 4 of this
chapter before March 31, 2005, and the wine is labeled with information
that the appropriate TTB officer finds to be sufficient to dispel the
impression that the use of ``Calistoga'' in the brand name conforms to
the appellation of origin requirements of Sec. 4.25 of this chapter;
or
(3) The use of the brand name complies with Sec. 4.39(i)(2) of
this chapter.
Signed: November 7, 2007.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
Approved: November 7, 2007.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. E7-22715 Filed 11-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P